My reaction on an issue like this is to always apply it to the extreme scenario: Game 7 of the World Series, bottom of the ninth. Do you want the umpire having to decide if the runner PROBABLY would've scored or not? No, I wouldn't. Then, where do you draw the line (IF you're moving it, that is?) Do you allow umpires to decide how many bases a runner gets if the ball gets thrown into the dugout? Surely Edgar Martinez and Juan Pierre would potentially end up on different bases given the same situation. Why not eliminate the foul poles, and have the umps estimate whether a ball is a home run when it goes down the line?

“To get ass, you’ve got to bring ass." -- Roy Jones Jr.

"Your input has been noted.I hope you don't take it personally if I disregard it." -- Guru Zim

Adios, Angels. Boston completes the sweep, putting them in prime position for the next round. Shame on anyone who picked the Angels for the World Series.

In a future post, I'll apologize for anything nice I ever said about the Dodgers' chances.

Edit: The Yankee game is just ending as I type this, so I should mention the day's other development: Can the doubts around Kevin Brown now be dispelled? Held the twins to one run at home. He had the terrible start his first day back at Fenway, which he attributes to a stiff back, but he's been on target his past two times out.

Santana to go on 3 days rest to try and keep the Twins alive.I suppose you have to throw him out there, if they lose they'd get killed for not going with him.Assuming the Yanks do win, can Boston win extra innings games against them if they need to?

Originally posted by MercAssuming the Yanks do win, can Boston win extra innings games against them if they need to?

Well theoretically yes since the Yankees have a turd bullpen past Rivera and Gordon. Felix Heredia and Esteban Loaiza and Tanyon Sturtze and imploded Paul Quantrill and whatnot. The Yankees might run the risk of overworking their big two relievers in tight games and get hammered because of it.

I find it somewhat convenient that the current Boston is basically an upgrade of the last two teams to smoke the Yankees out of the playoffs ('02 Anaheim, '03 Florida). They can field, they can pitch, they can run a little, and, most importantly, they can hit the hell out of the ball.

Anaheim deserves to be out of there for Scioscia's gag job with the bullpen in Games 2 and 3. How you decide to leave Percival in the 'pen is beyond me, especially when Percival's got a BETTER average against left-handers than Washburn! (.218 vs. .225) The fact that Washburn hadn't make a relief appearance in FIVE YEARS has to be taken into account there.

I think Scioscia tried to be overly cute with his bullpen and it cost him a possible chance to win Game 2 (with Donnelly giving up four in the ninth while Percival sat) and Game 3. Buh-bye, Angels.

Also, a BIG thanks to the Yankees for proving me right in sticking a fork in the Twins after that crushing Game 2 defeat when my boss INSISTED the Twins were still going to win the series.

“To get ass, you’ve got to bring ass." -- Roy Jones Jr.

"Your input has been noted.I hope you don't take it personally if I disregard it." -- Guru Zim

Originally posted by MercAssuming the Yanks do win, can Boston win extra innings games against them if they need to?

Well theoretically yes since the Yankees have a turd bullpen past Rivera and Gordon. Felix Heredia and Esteban Loaiza and Tanyon Sturtze and imploded Paul Quantrill and whatnot. The Yankees might run the risk of overworking their big two relievers in tight games and get hammered because of it.

I find it somewhat convenient that the current Boston is basically an upgrade of the last two teams to smoke the Yankees out of the playoffs ('02 Anaheim, '03 Florida). They can field, they can pitch, they can run a little, and, most importantly, they can hit the hell out of the ball.

I find it somewhat convenient that the current Boston is basically an upgrade of the last two teams to smoke the Yankees out of the playoffs ('02 Anaheim, '03 Florida). They can field, they can pitch, they can run a little, and, most importantly, they can hit the hell out of the ball.

Can they win more gams in the regular season? NO

Yankees in 5

What? Are you saying the Yankees won more games than the Red Sox in the regular season? Because I totally know that. They won more than Florida in the regular season last year. They won more than Anaheim in the regular season in '02. Hell, they won more than Arizona in '01. That didn't exactly stop them from losing to them.

I don't think New York matches up particularly well with Boston. Given that the Sox won the season series 11-8, that seems kind of true.

Anyway, I'll stick with Sox in six, though I have a hard time actually, truly, seriously believing I'm going to see it happen in real life, on TV and all. And frankly I don't care if they do or don't. F you all, go Orioles. ...y'know, someday.

Garner of the Astros is a lousy manager. How do you double switch Biggio out of a tie game, and then get screwed because you get 2 hits in the 8th, thus causing Lidge to get removed after only throwing 7 pitches? Can they at least get 30,000 in Atlanta to show up for a Game 5?

The head-to-head 11-8 record of the Yankees/Red Sox is out of context. The Sox went 6-1 against the Yankees in April back when the Yankees couldn't hit. They also got two of those wins in late September after the Yankees clinched the playoffs. The Yankees are better than Boston in tight games. It should be a close series.

And I don't know what the Astros were thinking pitching Clemens on 3 days rest. That never works for him. It didn't work for the Twins either with Santana, but the Twins were playing an elimination game. Houston should've held back Clemens for game 5.

Originally posted by skorpio17The head-to-head 11-8 record of the Yankees/Red Sox is out of context. The Sox went 6-1 against the Yankees in April back when the Yankees couldn't hit. They also got two of those wins in late September after the Yankees clinched the playoffs. The Yankees are better than Boston in tight games. It should be a close series.

And I don't know what the Astros were thinking pitching Clemens on 3 days rest. That never works for him. It didn't work for the Twins either with Santana, but the Twins were playing an elimination game. Houston should've held back Clemens for game 5.

This is a silly line of reasoning. If Santana had won, the Twins would have been playing yet another elimination game the next day.

Also, the 119-loss 2003 Tigers had a winning record in one-run games. (Thank you Tom Verducci), so why does the Yankee record in "tight games" matter?

As for your dimissal of the season head-to-head record: the injury-plagued Red Sox who played .500 ball for three months, and during that stretch dropped several games to NY, disappeared on August 1st.

Originally posted by PalpatineWThis is a silly line of reasoning. If Santana had won, the Twins would have been playing yet another elimination game the next day.

The Twins HAD to go with Santana. It was all or nothing. No sense saving him for a possible nothing. The Astros had an it'd be nice to win today game, so they didn't absolutely have to go with their ace.

Heck, even if you start Clemens, why take him out so early? You'd think that Clemens would suck it up and be able to go more than five innings, even on short rest.....oh wait, I forgot, I think Roger Clemens is an overrated asshole douchebag. Go Braves.

Originally posted by Big BadHeck, even if you start Clemens, why take him out so early?

Take him out early perhaps because him going on three days rest was just to help them put it away at home, not giving up an early lead, and not have to go back to Atlanta today. It makes sense, I guess, though it was a bad call because, as we've heard 1000 times, Clemens sucks on three days rest historically. This time he didn't quite suck, but he was only good for so long, and then Garner probably figured he could rely on his bullpen, and even give Lidge the 8th and 9th if necessary.

Where Garner really stumbled, I think, was going to Chad Qualls. Just seems a little arrogant, even for a three-run lead. Qualls has never been in a situation that demanded much of him before, and three runs is only a couple bad pitches and one swing away. Hey, what do you know. That just really seems like a situation where you put Dan Miceli in. They're comparable pitchers and Miceli actually had a pretty okay season, plus he's a veteran instead of someone with 25 games ML experience under his belt. I mean, if you're talking a gross difference in skill, then veteran status means nothing, but we're not. It's Chad Qualls and Dan Miceli. Let Miceli hopefully eat two innings, then you can go to Lidge for the 8th and 9th.

Luckily for the Astros they still have Roy Oswalt for game five, so this could all be moot anyway.

oh wait, I forgot, I think Roger Clemens is an overrated asshole douchebag.

Asshole and douchebag fine, but overrated? That is really silly. Compare him to anyone post-World War II. He holds up. The fact that he's 42 and put up a sub-3 ERA with a hitter's home park this year is pretty great itself, if his career 328 wins, 3.18 ERA, .230 BAA and 4317 strikeouts don't work for you.

Bob Gibson was probably throwing at his son in the backyard for leaning in too close when he was 41/42. I like to think Roger would be doing the same had he retired, but instead he was a major piece of a team from that went from .500 to a ridiculous second-half comeback and into the playoffs.

On Clemens: Since '93, he has been awful on 3 days rest. Game 4 was the best he's pitched in that situation, and even then he struggled to go 5. And, for those who haven't noticed yet: Game 2 of the ALCS and Game 1 of the NLCS will be going on at the same time, as FOX (the people who decided not to bring most of the country either Angels/A's or Dodgers/Giants on the last Saturday of the regular season) has decided in their infinite 'wisdom' to go with split national broadcast rather than day game into night game. Even the NHL in their glorious stupidity doesn't put Conference Finals head to head.

Wait a minute, a couple of weeks ago you were all "Vlad's coming to Baltimore, it's a done deal, the sky will open and God will send orange-and-black light down across the plains" etc. Now it's no big deal that he didn't sign?